What if the USA splits peacefully in 1788

In 1787, the United States peacefully breaks up between North and South, with Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, the Carolina's, and Georgia comprising the new American Federation, with the northern states retaining the title of the USA.

The division is caused by issues with the new constitution drafts, causing the convention to collapse and ideals of separation begin to arise, culminating in June of 88 with the states agreeing to mark the border at the Ohio River.

The two nations both agree to maintain a military alliance in order to fend off a British attack should the UK attempt to take advantage of the split, but other than that all ties are politically severed.

How does this play out?
 

jahenders

Banned
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the demarcation, but some breakdown is possible since they were very much in the middle or debating very contentious issues (proportional representation, governmental structure, etc). They even had problems getting everyone to send delegates to a constitutional convention.

If they did split thus, maintain border peace, and really work together against the British it could work for a while. Let's assume they even go in together on the Louisiana Purchase, drawing a demarcation line West (perhaps along the Arkansas, or other, river). Then, both expand West somewhat.

However, I think that idea would be sorely tested by events leading up to the War of 1812. A lot of the issues leading to war were focused ITTL USA, I can't see the American Fed (AF) would go along with it to the point of war.

So, if the US still goes to war with England, and the AF doesn't join (or only joins as a co-belligerent, not an active ally), the US has a much harder time and might ultimately lose some territory to the British and have their expansion somewhat limited. Meanwhile, the AF might use the war as an opportunity for more expansion.

The two wind up relatively closer in power and, perhaps, less friendly.

In 1787, the United States peacefully breaks up between North and South, with Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, the Carolina's, and Georgia comprising the new American Federation, with the northern states retaining the title of the USA.

The division is caused by issues with the new constitution drafts, causing the convention to collapse and ideals of separation begin to arise, culminating in June of 88 with the states agreeing to mark the border at the Ohio River.

The two nations both agree to maintain a military alliance in order to fend off a British attack should the UK attempt to take advantage of the split, but other than that all ties are politically severed.

How does this play out?
 

birdboy2000

Banned
I don't think large confederations are particularly likely - you're reading the civil war too far back. One of the major fault lines was the representation of small states versus their bigger neighbors, and when you reduce the number of states that just intensifies the issue. Another, the central government as a whole versus that of individual states, has no obvious regional correlation. North Carolina was the second to last to ratify, Rhode Island the last.

It might lead to a continued, increasingly nominal articles of confederation. It might lead to 13 sovereign states - and perhaps a 14th in Vermont, and western territories striking out on their own. This doesn't rule out later re-unification, but neither does it rule out continued division. The Americas managed to produce some damn small states OTL, and continent-spanning confederations aren't exactly typical in history.
 
I don't think large confederations are particularly likely - you're reading the civil war too far back. One of the major fault lines was the representation of small states versus their bigger neighbors, and when you reduce the number of states that just intensifies the issue. Another, the central government as a whole versus that of individual states, has no obvious regional correlation. North Carolina was the second to last to ratify, Rhode Island the last.

It might lead to a continued, increasingly nominal articles of confederation. It might lead to 13 sovereign states - and perhaps a 14th in Vermont, and western territories striking out on their own. This doesn't rule out later re-unification, but neither does it rule out continued division. The Americas managed to produce some damn small states OTL, and continent-spanning confederations aren't exactly typical in history.

I do not know much about state politics of the era: Were there any states cooperating better with each other, so some two- or three-member federations might appear?
I know that Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachussetts were the big boys, but they are mostly kept from each other by smaller buffer states.
 

jahenders

Banned
You have a point about the size issue, but I still think that some confederations are likely. Most of the states know that, if they don't have some kind of confederation/alliance, they'll be abused or swallowed up by others -- either other states or other countries (England, etc).

Also, while splitting roughly in two, with perhaps a few stragglers that just wander off on their own, you simplify any debate. It's almost ALWAYS easier to get agreement out of 5-6 people/groups than out of 13.

Heck, perhaps a bunch of the larger states decide they've heard enough of the Rhode Island and Delaware equal representation business and just say, "Here's the deal -- take it or you're on your own." You could potentially have a union of all of the largish (population-wise) states and RI, DE, GA, and NH are left to decide whether or not to join even without the 2-house different representation scheme (or with one less favorable). A constitution with that kind of representation would have HUGE impacts on the evolution of the US because all new states (almost all having relatively tiny populations) would be almost powerless when they became states (making joining far less attractive).

I don't think large confederations are particularly likely - you're reading the civil war too far back. One of the major fault lines was the representation of small states versus their bigger neighbors, and when you reduce the number of states that just intensifies the issue. Another, the central government as a whole versus that of individual states, has no obvious regional correlation. North Carolina was the second to last to ratify, Rhode Island the last.

It might lead to a continued, increasingly nominal articles of confederation. It might lead to 13 sovereign states - and perhaps a 14th in Vermont, and western territories striking out on their own. This doesn't rule out later re-unification, but neither does it rule out continued division. The Americas managed to produce some damn small states OTL, and continent-spanning confederations aren't exactly typical in history.
 
Sorry, but as I've said before, sorry, but why think real people are actually as stupid as you're wishing our constitutional convention was?

Especially since the original Articles clearly were total fail, making their replacement vital. And, isn't wanting more fail the strangest thing thing to want more of?

And why that particular division choice? Isn't it massively soon for the Civil War?
 
Top